''The SEC sued BizRadio co-founder Albert Kaleta and his investment firm Kaleta Capital Management in November 2009, claiming he sold $10 million in promissory notes by saying the money would be loaned to small businesses at up to 14 percent interest, then funneled the money to BizRadio's scam.

Kaleta signed an SEC consent order in which he agreed to pay a $1.5 million fine, admitted no wrongdoing, and agreed not to violate securities laws in the future, according to a contemporary report in the Houston Chronicle.''
'---------------

Laffer had little to do with this--he did lend his name for a fee. Bad judgment on his part.

Now the plaintiffs can sue whoever they want--proving it is quite another matter.

Don't rain on Runnyshitspot's parade, Murph..his shit is weak enough as it is..no need to help it wash on out to sea...

"wasted with no reasonable expectation of recovery."

Sounds like Solyndra and about another dozen "green" companies that received tax dollars.

Kaleta signed an SEC consent order in which he agreed to pay a $1.5 million fine, admitted no wrongdoing, and agreed not to violate securities laws in the future, according to a contemporary report in the Houston Chronicle

gee, I wonder if you could rob a bank of 10 million, get caught but allowed to keep 9 million if you promise to rob banks anymore?
###
"Laffer had little to do with this--he did lend his name for a fee."

Funny, Muffy, that's not what the article says:
"It continues: "The limited partnerships are investment vehicles run by defendants Wallace and Bajjali, with endorsement and participation from Laffer."

The charlatan who created The Laughter Curver involved in a Ponzi scheme? Well, I never!?!

The charlatan who created The Laughter Curver involved in a Ponzi scheme? Well, I never!?!

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Doc, if there is no curve then a 100% tax rate would result in the maximum tax revenues.

It won't.

Just the opposite would happen; and it would only take a day or two.

Even though you may not be necessarily intellectually honest, you do honestly know I'm correct.

Go on record genius. Straight line or a curve?

Here, I'll help you out. In statistics, it's known as the point of diminishing returns.

"Go on record genius."

I did, Rain Man: Laffer is a charlatan.

with endorsement and participation from Laffer.

What do you expect from someone who promoted voodoo economics?

"Go on record genius."

I did, Rain Man: Laffer is a charlatan.

#8 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

You must be the very same professor that did Michelle Obama's grading.

Laffer is a lackey of the Conservative Right, Propagandist for Fox News!!!

Doc, if there is no curve then a 100% tax rate would result in the maximum tax revenues.
It won't.
Just the opposite would happen; and it would only take a day or two.
Even though you may not be necessarily intellectually honest, you do honestly know I'm correct.
Go on record genius. Straight line or a curve?

#6 | POSTED BY BLOODSACRAFICE

Dumbass....everyone knows there is a curve. But it's about HOW your draw the curve. Laffer's curve was way off and every reputable economist in the country agrees. On that point, so does history.

In statistics, it's known as the point of diminishing returns.

Link?
Doc, if there is no curve then a 100% tax rate would result in the maximum tax revenues.

According to you, zero taxes would also result in the maximum tax revenues. Explain that.

want a sure bet?

if romney werent front runner...AND if barry were comfortable on re election...this would not be here today...

the democrat media complex is on the move..

Doc, if there is no curve then a 100% tax rate would result in the maximum tax revenues.

According to you, zero taxes would also result in the maximum tax revenues. Explain that.

#13 | Posted by northguy3

I implied no such thing, I believe some optimum rate of taxation exists between 0 and 100%.

It's the rate that generates maximum tax revenue - right to the point of reversing the curve back down.

(D)anni might suggest a number like 80% taxes. It's safe to say my number would be much lower, but not 0%.

Try again, loser.

Dumbass....everyone knows there is a curve. But it's about HOW your draw the curve. Laffer's curve was way off and every reputable economist in the country agrees. On that point, so does history.

#12 | Posted by Sycophant

You give far too much credit to your fellow posters.

For example, (d)anni has probably never even heard of the Laffer Curve and, if she has, I can guarantee you she does not understand it.

She has stated before that high tax rates "built" the middle class. When the truth is, personal tax rates have been steadily trending downwards since about 1941.

It's was falling tax rates built the middle class. Just look at the graph, fig. 2 in the link below.

the democrat media complex is on the move..

#14 | Posted by afkabl2

As is the republican parrot simples.

How's that whole Parry thing workin' out for you, afkabagger?

Blood-I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but every year after 1950, with all those revenue raising tax cuts has a deficit.

There is no proof Laffer did anything more than lend his name. An accusation is not proof. Plaintiffs commonly throw a net hoping to snare as many deep pockets as possible.

"It's was falling tax rates built the middle class. Just look at the graph, fig. 2 in the link below."

Your chart says exactly the opposite. As tax rates fell the middle class began to disappear and debt began to grow.

You must be the very same professor that did Michelle Obama's grading.
#10 | Posted by BloodSacrafice

Well, Rain Man, at least I can read and understand her thesis, which puts me in a whole other ballpark from the loser's mud pit you're mired in.

But I can see why you're having a hard time defending Laffer. Still, can't you come up with anything better than that?

(It's a rhetorical question, dumbass.)

Well many, many private equity deals specializing in RE born around this time lost most if not all of client monies. I can understand why they are suing all involved.....

Well, Rain Man, at least I can read and understand her thesis, which puts me in a whole other ballpark from the loser's mud pit you're mired in.

But I can see why you're having a hard time defending Laffer. Still, can't you come up with anything better than that?

(It's a rhetorical question, dumbass.)

#20 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Read, understand, but lack the wisdom of a professor who would recognize such a bankrupt endeavor by a student.

A responsible educator would not stand for such filth on paper.

We are indeed in different leagues.

O'Bugger's getting sued right now too. A friend of mine got sued for being in the phone book. Big whoop.